Specialist Arms Forum
Warmaster => [WM] Warmaster Fantasy Rules Questions => Topic started by: StumpyCat on November 15, 2012, 03:39:12 PM
-
Thanks Mr Lex your a gem!
Aha I forgot to add another little issue we had last week.
The revised text for the Empire Steam tank mentions that it is allways counted as defended.
So when my Dwarven cannons of Doom shoot it, is it still defended ? As the cannon text says that
when a cannnon shoots it allways counts targets as in the open.
-
The Steamtank would always be in the open anyway 8)
IIRC the rulling was that you always need 6's 5s to hit the Steamtank AND it ignores 2 hits for Driveback ? But someone should confirm this
Sorry... the Steamtank rules are specific and specfic rules always override generic rules (iow the Cannonshooting is a generic rule). I did however misquote, as obviously it is always DEFENDED (needing 5s) not 6s.
-
oddly enough i logged in to ask exactly this question because it was my tank stumpy was trying to murderalise :) Sadly you are mis-remembering Lex.
The actual rules for Steam Tanks say this:
"Because of its exceptionally heavy armour plating, a Steam Tank always counts as defended - so a 5 or 6 is normally required to inflict a hit from shooting or in combat."
Cannons on the other hand state this:
"Cannons ignore a target’s Armour because no armour can nullify a hit caused by a cannon ball. No Armour roll is made. In addition, fortified targets only count as being defended (5+ to hit) and defended targets count as being in the open (4+ to hit)."
This, unfortunately, is entirely contradictory and I can see the case for either.
Basically speaking should the tank counts as defended not because it is behind cover but because it is so hard to find a weak spot to cause damage through and thus the to hit penalty is imposed to reflect the difficulty of hiting such weak spots or to put it another way... do the rules say it counts as defended because the -1 to hit already exists in the rules under this concept and it was supposed to keep things simple or...
Should the cannon just blow the crap out of the tanks uber armour cos, well, it's a freaking cannon man and nothing but nothing can hide from the cannonballs of doom! I can completely see this being the case... it is after all a freaking cannon that can blow holes in fortifications but both interpretations make sense to me and i wonder what others think?
One last point, the Steam Tank rules were adapted to include the 'always defended' bit considerably after the cannon rules were finalised... is it just a case that someone forgot that cannons did this?
-
BTW.... I would be a very, very happy bunny if this was correct :o
IIRC the rulling was that you always need 6's to hit the Steamtank AND it ignores 2 hits for Driveback ? But someone should confirm this
-
That is a very good question.
-
The steam tank count as Defended always. It can't be driven back or routed by shooting (but still roll to see if it becomes confused).
So, if a Cannon shoots at it, I think it will count as in the open (4+), and no armor roll is allowed.
Not sure of what are Cannons of Doom. In which list are they?
-
In my opinion it is simple. Steam Tank counts as defended regardless where it is placed, unlike cannons, infantry etc. And then normal rules apply. Troops are hiting it on 5+, they have no bonus attack in the charge etc. Cannons always hit defended targets on 4+, so Steam Tank being defended is hit on 4+ and has no armour saving throw.
It is "just" defended. "always" means "wherever" it is, not "whenever" - nothing more in fact.
-
It is "just" defended. "always" means "wherever" it is, not "whenever" - nothing more in fact.
Sorry but I'm not sure this sentence makes sense... it's late though so i may be a bit beffudled.
To me it can only mean that it either means that it always counts as defended, no exceptions, no over-rules (as yet printed) and that this wording is deliberate or it means that the word "always" slipped in by error and should be edited out to remove the confusion.
Both are entirely possible and both would work within the framework of the rules but i don't think trying to twist the meaning of the very clear and concise word "always" is the right interpretation/solution to the problem.
-
infantry in barricades is always defended. But when a cannon shoot them, the cannon hits with 4+ in despite they are in the barricades.
I agree with Edmund and Getlord.
-
An interesting point that Getlord puts forward that I wonder about.....
... they have no bonus attack in the charge etc...
... in regards to unit that charges the Steam Tank and how the s.tank is classified as "defended" due to its exceptionally heavy armour plating.
I feel that this is taking the "defended" rules too far in regards to the s.tank.
A unit attacking the s.tank has the penalty of only hitting the s.tank on a 5 or 6 due to the armour plating - that is the penalty. However, I find it a challenge to accept that you lose the charge bonus, even if the s.tank is in the open, solely due to its exceptionally heavy armour plating. It doesn't have the ability to partially hide behind a wall, in a wood or a ruin or take advantage of vegetation, hedges, ditches or folds in the ground or being on the higher level when on a hill as infantry or artillery can. These situations mentioned are the cause of chargers losing the +1 attack when charging defended targets, not having exceptionally heavy armour plating.
Maybe I'm dumbing it down too much but in the special rules for the s.tank, it only states the hitting on a 5 or 6 when attacking a s.tank as it is "defended"; nothing about losing your charge bonus. However, I can see how it can be interpreted that you lose the charge bonus if you read and only apply those specific portions of the defended description to the s.tank.
Thoughts??
-
My opinion:
If the rule says "Defended", then it should be defended: 5+, no bonus dice in charge
If the cannons reduce the status in one level, then it should be reduced.
Any exceptions to the Rules should be noted in the descriptions of the unit specifically and very, very clear. If not, the rules apply.
-
Quoted from the rules on charge bonus's:
"The bonus does not apply if the enemy are not in the open, ie, when a stand is fighting against infantry or artillery in a defended or fortified position as described later."
I think this is just another anomaly thrown up by the wording in the rules. As it stands the tank counts as a defended position due to its armour which would mean no charge bonus as it is not counted as being in the open. It all seems to come down to counting the tank as defended rather than making a new rule to give the same (or very similar effect) If, instead of saying the tanks armour means it always counted as defended, the rules said something like: " Due to its heavy armour all attacks on a steam tank require a 5 or 6 to hit, this reflects the difficulty in landing a telling shot/blow" this would solve the problem of a unit claiming a position bonus without requiring a specific position (it would also really annoy elven archers but i am fine with that :P) This would strengthen the unit against cannon but weaken it against melee assault where it already suffers pretty badly... all those extra charging in the open dice can pretty quickly add up when flank charging is concerned :-\
My experiences so far have been that the tank survives very well against missiles and charges from single units but is easily destroyed if the attacker has support or can draw in any nearby infantry... so far i have never had the misfortune of putting my tank in the way of cannon shot and until this is firmly resolved (and probably then too) I intend to keep hiding from the tricksy little tank killers
-
Sorry... the Steamtank rules are specific and specfic rules always override generic rules (iow the Cannonshooting is a generic rule). I did however misquote, as obviously it is always DEFENDED (needing 5s) not 6s.
So, only to understand right what are you saying:
If adwarf cannon shoots a steam tank.
The cannon throw 2+2 atacks hitting 5+
The steam tank has 3+ save according with living rules stats but save roll is invalid because it is a cannon. No armour save for the steam tank.
Also ignore push backs of the cannon, but if it is needed to throw because it can be confused with 6. Also as it is defended the first dice of the push back is ommited/discarded.
is it right?
-
The cannon throw 2+2 atacks hitting 5+
The steam tank has 3+ save according with living rules stats but save roll is invalid because it is a cannon. No armour save for the steam tank.
Also ignore push backs of the cannon, but if it is needed to throw because it can be confused with 6. Also as it is defended the first dice of the push back is ommited/discarded.
is it right?
No, the cannon treats defended targets as in the open, so it should be 4+ to hit.
The rest I think is right (no armor, no push backs)
-
Cannon shooting is generic rule.
Steamtank = specific, so steamtank overrides Cannon rule.
Similar to commandpenalty in woods (generic) vs. Skinks (specific rule NO command penalty.
The SPECIFIC rules states it will always count as being DEFENDED, so cannon shooting at Steamtank need 5+ to hit.
GENERIC rules for cannon states HITS ignore armour, as there is NO specific rule for the Steamtank that contradicts this, hits by cannon are automatic wounds.
Driveback when defended ignore 1st hit, anything in the steamtank rules that is specific in this area ?? !! Apply that otherwise apply the GENERIC rule.
:P
-
Driveback when defended ignore 1st hit, anything in the steamtank rules that is specific in this area ?? !! Apply that otherwise apply the GENERIC rule.
:P
Sorry, not sure of understand that sentence ( :-[ ) can you express what happens with the driveback in other words?
thanks in advance, Lex
-
LOL... 8) no wprries, as I am harly a native english speaker/writer myself.
I mean to say:
Apply all driveback as per the GENERIC rules. As the SPECIFIC rule nominates the Steamtank as always defended, it will ignore on hit for the purpose of Driveback. In addition:
Steam Tanks cannot be driven back or routed by shooting. However - it is still deemed necessary to roll drive backs to determine if the Steam Tank becomes Confused on a roll of a 6.
So again, the Steamtank has a SPECIFIC rule: Roll all the "driveback"dice that remain after subtracting the 1st, and on a 6 it will confuse.
When in doubt, ruleswise: Check the GENERIC rule first, apply the GENERIC rule UNLESS the unit(s) subject to the rule have SPECIFIC rules, in which case the SPECIFIC rule overrides the GENERIC rule.
-
all clear!
-
The SPECIFIC rules states it will always count as being DEFENDED, so cannon shooting at Steamtank need 5+ to hit.
Ok!
-
But isnt the" ignore armor and hit in the open" a specific rule of the cannon?
p68 Advanced rules:
No Armour roll is made. In addition, fortified targets only count
as being defended (5+ to hit) and defended targets
count as being in the open (4+ to hit)
So even if the steam tank counts as defended he should be hit on a 4+ as well. Special steam tank rules makes him always defended and the special cannon rule takes that bonus away. All normal/generic shooting should still be on 5+.
-
You have two specific rules in conflict here
The Cannon reduce cover by one level and the Steam tank always count as defended.
The Kislev war wagon uses different wording A laagered wagon counts as a defended unit.
so doesn't really help. Here I would say Cannon hit on a 4+.
I would probably lean to the Steam Tank being hit on 5+ by cannons as there is no armour save against cannon shot, even for the heavy armour of the Steam Tank.
-
I dont quite see the contradiction. The special rule of the steam tank is that it always counts as defended and the special rule of the cannon says that it ignores defended units. So the steam tank rule is nullified by the cannon.
Just like Infantry in terrain is always defendend, except when it gets shot by a cannon.
-
I dont quite see the contradiction. The special rule of the steam tank is that it always counts as defended and the special rule of the cannon says that it ignores defended units. So the steam tank rule is nullified by the cannon.
Just like Infantry in terrain is always defendend, except when it gets shot by a cannon.
Interesting idea, that is what I always understood the rule and I expressed it in the firsts posts (not expressed with the exactitud as guthwine do, but same idea)
-
My prefered interpretation would be that the always part of the Steam Tank rules should trump the base rules for the cannon both because it does say always and because, thematically, the bonus is due to massively heavy armour giving at least a little a little defence against the cannon barrage. Taking the Kislev War as a counterpoint, i would personally say that the cannon ignoring it's defended position would be correct as the bonus in this case is specifically due to it providing cover and it doesn't say it always counts as defended.
-
I do not understand your point. If somethging always count as defended it is "just" defended, but always.
And all the units have to deal with that status. Always. Some of them deal by hitting on 5+ (and no charge bonus) some of them hitting on 4+ like cannon.
All defended targets, temporarily defended, occasionally defended and always defended targets are hit on 4+ by a cannon ball.
Defended is the status. It is not the probability to hit. The probability to hit is considered in completely different phase of the game. Let's say at the end of movement phase some units are defended, some not. Steam Tank commander does not have to worry about the cover - he is always defended. Then the Movement phase is finished. And then different units try to hit defended targets in the shooting phase.
Some of them are doing it on 5+ some on 4+.
And it is no generic versus special rule discussion here. That's how I see it.
-
I am swayed by the arguments 8) ::)
I will scratch my earlier ones (later today) to avoid to much miscommunication. I concur that there is no need to weigh in generic vs specific in this case.
-
As the Evil person who started all of this I would like to say whoops :P
As MrMistake points out the Steam Tank text was rewritten more recently than the cannon and I belive an oversight has occured. Some poor bugger forgot that cannons have the specific rule.Hardly the end of the world really.
Personaly my opinion is that the Steam Tank text could read:
Because of its exceptionally heavy armour plating, a Steam Tank always counts as defended - so a 5 or 6 is normally required to inflict a hit from shooting or in combat. The only exception to this is cannon shot, as the fierce volleys from these weapons are known to shatter even the thickest armor.
Just a thought.
-
Or (if the Always defended really should mean ALWAYS) the rules could be ammended to:
"Because of its exceptionally heavy armour plating, a 5 or 6 is required to inflict a hit from shooting or in combat against the Steam Tank. All other rules regarding armour are applied as normal."
and yes, I do like bolding the word ALWAYS ;D
-
Or (if the Always defended really should mean ALWAYS) the rules could be ammended to:
"Because of its exceptionally heavy armour plating, a 5 or 6 is required to inflict a hit from shooting or in combat against the Steam Tank. All other rules regarding armour are applied as normal."
But the rule doesn't say that. :)
I agree more with Getlord's point of view. The cannon always counts defended target as in the open, too.
-
This whole discussion does boil down to the use of the word ALWAYS in the steam tank description.
As I mentioned above, the Kislev War Wagon uses another form of words - it is hard to know if this is a deliberate decision or is just due to the different sentence structure.
Personally I quite like the steam tank being very hard to wound, but rather ineffectual at causing damage.
I lean to the side that the use of always, is meant to mean always, and overrides other rules. But I can understand the other interpretation. Is no one in contact with the person who drafted the revised steam tank rules?
-
. But I can understand the other interpretation. Is no one in contact with the person who drafted the revised steam tank rules?
Raises finger... :-[ :-X :'(
-
Oh dear, poor Lex clearly doesn't watch enough war films.... never volunteer, always take a step back. Looks like you get to poke the person who wrote the rule and make him/her/it explain what they meant :o
-
I am sorry but I lose the power of reasoned argument.
I have these "discusions" every thursday with MrMistake and I now cannot really be botherd.
What ever rules you wish to implement or make up are yours for the offing.
I shal not contest or offer any argument to your constant shouting.
Your last move took one hundered and seventeen minutes at that time I had lost the will to live.
Let alone point out or contest your rules arguments.
-
Oh dear, poor Lex clearly doesn't watch enough war films.... never volunteer, always take a step back. Looks like you get to poke the person who wrote the rule and make him/her/it explain what they meant :o
Not volunteering... 8)
I am/was part of the review..... hence my earlier point on generic vs special rules. But I stand corrected by Guthwine: both the rules for Steamtank AND cannon are in effect special rules and thus both apply. Mind you the review on this bit was some time ago...
One note on the rulebook, and a point of some contention when doing the review, is that the writing-style of the book tends to "merge" fluff in with rules, which often leads to potential misinterpretation. We did discuss cleaning up those areas with Rick at the time, but sadly with the restructuring of GW and his subsequent departure, never got around to take out those ambivalent paragraphs.
The best I can offer right now would be to dedicate part of the forum to "answer" these questions, but the simple fact is that time and again we get told that "it aint official if GW dont print it", so the best we can manage here is to have a "community rule" (as a houserule, but for a larger meta-environment)
-
I shal not contest or offer any argument to your constant shouting.
Your last move took one hundered and seventeen minutes at that time I had lost the will to live.
Let alone point out or contest your rules arguments.
I don't recal constant shouting but all of us were certainly loud and I am definately the biggest offender :-[
As for a 117 minute turn... that seems a lot longer than i recal but it did involve 7 or 8 distinct multi unit combats featuring almost every unit on the table and shooting by the rest so yes, it was a bloody long turn :o
Oddly, it did not involve any discussion of the steamtank as it failed to move, only shot once and was never targeted ::)